Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

you are suggesting ignoring sources in favour of what we think it should say?

What obvious reasons are they?

You have made claims about me that are simply untrue.

I will continue to debate without recourse to personal attacks.




Steve

So, Steve, are you now saying that you have never claimed it as a fact that Paul was never out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that it?

It would be welcome.

[Fisherman]

Nope.

Nah - makes sense. And dovetails nicely with your overall efforts out here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

Not me.

Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.

You know very well that like most suspects CL will never be categorically exonerated unless so geographical anomaly comes up (which is unlikely in the extreme.) And so to use that as the guideline for whether CL should remain a suspect is so self serving as to not really require mentioning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nah - makes sense. And dovetails nicely with your overall efforts out here.

Harry can say what he likes.

I don’t trespass on medical grounds. It appeared that she was dead. I’ll leave others to debate that.

[Fisherman]

I’ll continue to post. To bring up points that I feel are relevant. As should everyone; on either side. But I think that it goes without saying that we can see where the bias lies. We can see where the exasperated mocking lies. We can see where the desperation is.

Yes, we can all see where the bias lies, definitely!

It is irrelevant that Stride was killed in Lechmere´s old neighbourhood, where his mother still lived with one of his daughters.

Andy Griffits is idiotic when disagreeing with you over whether Lechmere would have run.

And it is quite OK to say that Nichols was murdered before Lechmere arrived outside Browns.

So it is truly no problem at all to find the bias here, that´s for sure - you are on the money on that one!

[Fisherman]

Harry can say what he likes.

I don’t trespass on medical grounds. It appeared that she was dead. I’ll leave others to debate that.

Oh, Harry can say what he wants?

And how about me? "Lechmere was in all probability the killer, and is by far the best suspect there is".

I find that is something I am disallowed to say unattacked.

As an aside, appearing to be dead is ever so slightly different from being dead.

It´s like trying to be clever, more or less. No guarantee that we pull that one off either.

[Elamarna]

You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

Once again misrepresenting what was said, the claim was that you had not proven that Paul being out of earshot was a possibility, not that i had proven anything
Not me.

Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.

I have never said your view "must be looked away from" only that you would not welcome the work. Totally different things.
Again implying something that is not said.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear me, how many things you think I am "avoiding". I take full responsiblity for EVERYTHING I post.

Happy?

In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve

[Fisherman]

You know very well that like most suspects CL will never be categorically exonerated unless so geographical anomaly comes up (which is unlikely in the extreme.) And so to use that as the guideline for whether CL should remain a suspect is so self serving as to not really require mentioning.

A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.

[Elamarna]

So, Steve, are you now saying that you have never claimed it as a fact that Paul was never out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that it?

It would be welcome.

I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve

[Fisherman]

In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve

I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?

[caz]

Yes, Caz, you are perfectly correct - once he had called himself Cross, he could not use that ruse any more. And yes, Caz, you are correct - he went on killing anyway. And yes, Caz, you are correct - that meant taking a risk.

Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with after the event. If he was seen and identified at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve

Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?

[Elamarna]

I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?

Read post 1297, it says nothimg about having to accept Kelly's TOD, just the reverse.

So an admission it was "leg pulling" and thus untrue.

Thank you.

[Elamarna]

Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?

No avodance at all.
I have never said i have proved Paul was in earshot.
I said and still claisay you have not proved it was possible for Paul to be out of earshot, given the total lack of evidence to contradict the evidence of all the carmen, even the 3rd participant gives no evidence to support this view. That is significantly different from what you claim I said.


Steve